[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6699327,"mediaKeyId","2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26","parentId",2113790,"title","City attorneys brief board on Supreme Court Chevron ruling and implications for Fort Smith consent decree","audioSeconds",1688,"startMs",5592000,"endMs",7280000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26&start=5592&end=7280","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26/thumbnail_5592000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6699327/Fort-Smith/Sebastian-County/Arkansas/City-attorneys-brief-board-on-Supreme-Court-Chevron-ruling-and-implications-for-Fort-Smith-consent-decree","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6699327-4f7755d4df80fc7160c6e22a4a4bcb96/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008387&Signature=ZqYsBTGiQuYRMoqiz5Qehhek1TvYzav5XvUxTwKaknNxGBFR2AH~6LbTZOCf0jJ7txdaqEDCRMGrpyGv-9dZAtw-0ZVFHH3~R8zvF0-nHQd6i5OFC~6e7SoJG98tnJ73jl1mAWEUFuBnhWHv925Q6t4cgajV6By2ccs7Lj4Mw0nXWzr~qRbHLjqPR6ZW8LnTPnBLqfCfpFn960aee7V6KfwuC6FuhavfiFg4PEbQAkEBv78QJ66pK-0pDQN5X3CQP3vwxbQjtj0mwId8yP8lfjsc7ejrDcjvacA5qcM4nlgINacxPlF5ePpP2jU3yTy86DHwyt4iCSYYxTPG5u0DYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fort Smith","date","2025-01-14T18:01:00Z","article","City legal staff briefed the Fort Smith Board of Directors on Jan. 14 about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting Chevron deference to agency interpretations and explained how that ruling affects ongoing negotiations under the city’s consent decree with the Justice Department and EPA.

The city attorney explained the difference between statutory ambiguities and contract interpretation and said the core obligations under the Clean Water Act and the city’s NPDES permits are not, in themselves, ambiguous: “The city's basic position was we understand our problems; we understand them better than you understand them,” the city attorney said, describing the long negotiations that preceded the consent decree approval. He cautioned that the Supreme Court decision affects how courts will treat agency interpretations going forward but does not automatically negate or void existing consent decrees entered by courts.

Counsel and administration emphasized the consent decree’s practical terms are rooted in the negotiated agreement and prior litigation over items such as private service-line responsibilities and how to prioritize repairs. Those disputes, counsel said, were decided in courts under contract interpretation rather than Chevron deference to agency rulemaking.

Board members asked whether the ruling changes the enforceability or terms of Fort Smith’s consent decree; city counsel said it does not immediately alter the city’s obligations. Counsel also said ongoing negotiations with DOJ have, in recent months, advanced toward a proposal that could extend the city’s implementation schedule (staff described a possible 10‑year implementation window subject to board commitments and financing). Counsel said DOJ has been focused on assurances that funding mechanisms will enable earlier construction rather than pushing most work to the end of the compliance period.

Directors asked legal staff about possible strategies, including seeking penalty relief or re‑negotiating timing tied to demonstrated progress. Counsel said those are negotiation points; the board can choose litigation or further negotiations and could seek different legal representation if it wishes. Counsel named outside counsel who had reviewed the city memo and said that attorney had been consulted prior to distributing the opinion to the board.

Several directors raised broader policy questions after the briefing. Some urged continuing negotiations to gain time and clearer funding commitments; others noted the underlying public‑health and flood problems remain priorities for sequencing and financing. No formal change to the consent decree was proposed or adopted at the study session; counsel and administration said they would continue negotiations with DOJ and EPA and return with options and potential agreements for board consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fort Smith - Board of Directors - Jan 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City legal staff told the Fort Smith Board of Directors on Jan. 14 that a recent Supreme Court decision limiting Chevron deference changes how courts review federal agency interpretations but does not immediately alter the city's existing consent decree with the DOJ and EPA.","taxTitle","Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas","taxId",3748,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6699336,"Fort Smith board hears plan to pair park master plan with stormwater detention on former Acme Brick site",3703,494000,4197000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26&start=494&end=4197","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26/thumbnail_494000.jpg","/articles/6699336/Fort-Smith/Sebastian-County/Arkansas/Fort-Smith-board-hears-plan-to-pair-park-master-plan-with-stormwater-detention-on-former-Acme-Brick-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6699336-d981cdd89215c8274bb699eb59288d09/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008387&Signature=eKUULC5qkW5cnaPVAetYHpJmceymTbubySsczPUHNWDbt8YhKXYhsWBFhsXJmFbKWIanYGo5BPImXCmBuFbLIq6bXhouWwi2bB4Og--3C17vMB03Orfhg6X389XDQ7UYEICAHz5PjPCaCE3Z796P~GsC0m9pPYeZ3sbJ4fck4X4NMdU-IQmiW~k6ZuBTTkdglKX5LZa3TUTSh~r4MgBYERNeyYSxJvWboT~gCYTuPoQ9Q7stXNzqUjUndwDNn2Pbqj~YnGmBcVFgRKbHixbyxc5F3NRtE7OgOS0MwG8R7NoR3VcPOVPnnxYPJApMlPFXhSE9p8eSupaPn4ktcDJAlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City officials and outside consultants told the Fort Smith Board of Directors on Jan. 14 that stormwater detention design and a park master plan for the 111-acre former Acme Brick Company property should proceed in parallel so flood-control basins can be built without foreclosing future park amenities.

Sarah Duester, Fort Smith director of parks and recreation, told the board the city approved purchase of the acreage in October 2023 and the leading priority is stormwater and flood mitigation while many citizens also want park amenities. “The purpose of the study session is to provide the board with additional details of why those two studies and plans really need to work in conjunction with one another,” Duester said.

Consultants from RDG Planning and Design and Half Associates outlined how the park master plan and stormwater design can coordinate. Scott Crawford of RDG said the firms plan a 14-month master-planning process that will include four open houses and online engagement tools and a market/operations analysis to estimate long‑term maintenance needs and revenue opportunities. Travis Brezendine of Half Associates said preliminary work shows two detention basins will likely be needed — roughly an 11-acre footprint on the east side of the road and about 8 acres on the west — and that those basins can be shaped to be park amenities rather than stand-alone pits.

Staff and consultants gave cost and schedule estimates: RDG’s park master plan contract is $698,000; staff said 61% of that ($427,455) was programmed in the parks budget for 2025 and the remaining ~$270,545 was included in a street/drainage sales-tax CIP allocation. Engineering to design the detention basins was described as $466,000 on the preliminary agenda for a coming board meeting. Construction for two detention basins was estimated at about $5.2 million; consultants said basin construction could be bid in early 2026 and would take roughly a year to build once funding and contracts are in place.

Consultants and staff described the flood-reduction benefits based on a preliminary detention analysis: the addition of the Acme ponds alone would remove 39 houses from the 25‑year floodplain and 11 houses from the 100‑year floodplain, and increase the downstream system’s ability to convey storms (from roughly a 10‑year to a 25‑year design event).

Board members asked detailed questions about sequencing, costs and community expectations. Director LaVaughn Settle, who had advocated a mountain‑bike facility when the site was purchased, asked whether the quarry area would be preserved for mountain biking; engineers said one side of the property (the quarry) could be reserved for that use while the basins occupy other portions but stressed the need to coordinate locations during master planning. Several directors, including Kevin Kemp and Greg Rego, said flood mitigation for neighborhoods that experience frequent backups should be prioritized and emphasized using the drainage sales tax and programmed CIP dollars to cover engineering and construction.

Staff and consultants described funding options used on comparable projects: mixes of public CIP funding, tax increment financing and private investment. RDG cited a completed wetland park project that cost about $7.5 million as a point of reference for scale on smaller wetland‑park projects. Staff said the two consultant agreements — RDG for master planning and Half Associates for the stormwater design — are on track to be presented to the board for consideration at an upcoming meeting; several directors said they would be willing to vote on those agreements next week.

A number of directors urged keeping the master‑planning step because it identifies phasing, operations costs, and potential revenue components so early investments do not preclude later priorities. Others said the board could accelerate detention design and construction as the initial priority, then add park amenities in phases as funding becomes available.

No formal contract was approved at the study session. Administration said it will return with the RDG and engineering agreements for formal action at the board’s next meeting.

The board directed staff to present the consultant agreements for formal consideration at the next available meeting, and staff confirmed the engineering agreement for the detention basins was on the preliminary agenda for the coming week.","City staff and hired consultants told the Board of Directors that coordinating a park master plan with stormwater detention work will speed flood mitigation on the 111-acre former Acme Brick property and produce long-term recreational benefits; consultants and staff outlined timelines, costs and funding sources and the board agreed to consider the ",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6699323,"Board reviews Act 235 requirements and municipal code language on meetings and executive sessions",4224,6000,4230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26&start=6&end=4230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26/thumbnail_6000.jpg","/articles/6699323/Fort-Smith/Sebastian-County/Arkansas/Board-reviews-Act-235-requirements-and-municipal-code-language-on-meetings-and-executive-sessions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6699323-f9ab411d12f25c994cba8a290b01683b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008387&Signature=XlgFSNhXqz1GEVnKHUQgNMmMhjZzJPxsQOJR69Szdue8sQ5zKJeyM4AqBM0n4zsqvmuvdWXUQxBOan9AFPLjS-40B3T~I878s80zUWSopMoVGD9Dyj90NzNlF5xlGhT1XOTjHcJL3f93X6AamhU6pKx7aVLJ2aB-3~6zGeN6XfWOzVc7o5ushwuJ8FCwcfXF0RatGG9Zc5XgCUfHI~gJxog9XGBKYhMo1RReoLyQbrh4HBDFfybyqiKYpc3JfVVm-6yGyhECpLG0WlWeL6wVs4sBJ7nxx2U9~C5hOo4UxH6lM2fPSRNQ7yQvwhHo4DV4Ue6ul2GyVWETLyd5GDN98w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fort Smith Board of Directors reviewed state and municipal requirements for annual organization and meeting procedures at the opening of its Jan. 14 study session.

An administrator noted Act 235 of 2015 requires the city to assemble and organize governing bodies in December or January and that the municipal code provisions for setting meeting agendas and procedures have been provided for annual review. Directors asked specific questions about the code language, including topics that permit executive session and the required notice and media-contact rules for emergency meetings.

City counsel and staff explained that, in addition to longstanding executive‑session authority for personnel matters, state law also authorizes executive session for water‑system‑security matters. “In addition to the employment provisions… the only other exemption, permitting executive session, of which I'm aware, is the discussion of water system security matters,” a legal adviser said.

Directors also raised questions about section 2-27, which says board members must notify news media in an “expeditious manner” when an emergency meeting is called; staff noted the code defines “expeditious” to include attempted contact by e‑mail, telephone or facsimile and that the city’s GovDelivery public notification tool can be used. A director asked whether committee membership termination on Dec. 31 in the draft code would force annual reappointments; staff clarified that the city has boards and commissions with fixed terms and that standing committees are ad hoc and would be created by motion when needed.

No formal changes were adopted during the study session; staff said they circulate redline code language annually so the board can review and propose changes.","Directors reviewed annual organization requirements under Act 235 and municipal code provisions on executive session subjects, emergency-meeting notice and committee membership expiration; staff clarified allowable executive-session purposes and how the code defines \"expeditious\" notice for emergency meetings.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6699331,"Board debates charter and oversight for new Utilities Advisory Committee",1228,4245000,5473000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26&start=4245&end=5473","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2113790-336bc025f5d103baa2bb425eb688ee26/thumbnail_4245000.jpg","/articles/6699331/Fort-Smith/Sebastian-County/Arkansas/Board-debates-charter-and-oversight-for-new-Utilities-Advisory-Committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6699331-f96f9dfce1b01bf603795c9790bc0a75/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008387&Signature=n6juDYO825jkqVwBCDk6LP6j3V2ZQTCthBT~TLqc~8hyop8SW9S8RYaHps~wmpCXLgzXXBeXI4VGGFrmxxCisA8JYDUdAPPPj19WRvokffqmMCBoIqs4J18TWCb9IDjzmKJvUdp1qL6Yy9fbyhe~YZEHlA-1Clmezv~dgwoU~ZC5CSFBDol3k-w2SBdLhzdEZCxotx1vs1E~LbnRmxTcI5JspcNLelm7d0xAD0y-Gj0HNDrfLTzqS8wqmtDQOHedEiez0D59efMdh2MGNPOubZUmvCiGvoGY~hTUtswKgBWLN1QW0Kdr28IhCW35LM2ywZrH6pA8A14wFrbJAVX52A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fort Smith directors spent considerable time Jan. 14 reviewing proposed amendments to the Utilities Advisory Committee charter and aired concerns about member selection, the committee’s scope and whether it duplicates staff responsibilities.

Administration presented a revised charter that includes a provision to reference directions from the board of directors and to use the municipal code’s standard application and appointment process rather than designating the city administrator as the appointing official. “Those are the two changes that administration will make to the one that gets brought back before you for consideration,” an administrator said.

Directors asked for clearer board oversight and written deliverables from the committee. Director Neil Martin said he wants the board to provide direction and the committee to be tasked with producing recognizable outputs: “When the board gives the committee a task or an objective, then they can also define what the deliverable or the response should be.”

Several directors, including Kevin Kemp and LaVaughn Settle, said they fear the committee could duplicate work performed by Utilities Department staff and impose additional burdens on employees. Kemp asked for specifics on what gaps the committee would address, estimated staff workload and any projected costs for supporting the committee. “If this doesn't have director oversight but director involvement, then it's not going to accomplish the purpose,” Kemp said, asking whether the audit commission could handle some work instead.

Supporters of the committee, including Director Greg Rego, said it could give a focused forum for citizens and industry experts to review utility issues and recommend priorities; Rego said the board could appoint members, let the committee identify priority topics at its first meeting, and then add board guidance. Others recommended an alternative: schedule regular board study sessions dedicated to water and sewer matters so the board can exercise direct oversight and require actionable outcomes.

Administrators and counsel noted a procedural point: the ordinance creating the committee had been tabled to the Feb. 4 meeting and a separate vote would be needed to disband a committee already created. Multiple directors said they wanted the committee to be re‑chartered using the standard application and appointment rules and to return with clearer language about deliverables, oversight and staff support.

No final action was taken at the study session; staff said the charter would be revised to reflect the board’s input and placed on Feb. 4 agenda.","Directors and staff discussed amendments to the proposed Utilities Advisory Committee charter, with questions about appointment procedures, board oversight, potential duplication of staff work, and whether the board should instead schedule recurring study sessions on water and sewer issues.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City attorneys brief board on Supreme Court Chevron ruling and implications for Fort Smith consent decree

Fort Smith board hears plan to pair park master plan with stormwater detention on former Acme Brick site

Board reviews Act 235 requirements and municipal code language on meetings and executive sessions

Board debates charter and oversight for new Utilities Advisory Committee